U.S. Army Research InstituteCM for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

I Research Report 1556

Family Impacts on the Retentionof Military Personnel

Dennis K. OrthnerUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

DTICELECTEAUG08"0 i"

April 1990

Approved for public release; distributor, Is unlimited.

o(iJ

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdictionof the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

IDGAR M. JOHNSON JON W. BLADESTechnical Director COL, IN

Commanding

Research accomplished under contract forthe Department of the Army

Research Triangle Institute

Technical review by

D. Bruce BeDlArthur C. F Gilbert

NOTICES•I• o 'RI diukvfon q s re ha bLn y .' dd • •

FINAL DISVOSMION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it tothe U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The fu•dings in this report are not to be construe as an official Department of the Army posdino,urdess so designated by other authorzed documents.

UNCLASSIFIED ___

SECURIT~k CLAW~ATAýION OF WI~TS PAGEForm Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUnclassi fled ... .

2a- SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release;

__ distribution is unlimited.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NLIMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANiZATIONJ REPORT NUMBER(S)

-- ARI Research Report 1556

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(If applicable) U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Research Triangle Institute Behavioral and Social Sciences

Gc. ADDRESel (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code)

P.O. Box 12194 5001 Eisenhower AvenueResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709 Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

8a NAME 0; FUNDING /SPONSORIN Bb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBEROR AN.ZATION U.S O Army Research (If applicable)Institute tor the Behavioral

and Social Sciences PERI-R MDA903-87-C-05408L ADDRESS (City, State, arid ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

"PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT5001 Eisenhower Avenue ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 63007A 792 242 C2

11. TITLE (Inc/ude Security Clas.sification)

Family Impacts on the Retention of Military Personnel

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

()rthiier, Dennis K, (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) "15. PAGE COUNT

Final FROM861J TOj0L I 1990, April16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

Contracting Officer's Representative, D. Bruce Bell.

17. COSATI CODES IB SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP I lsted-rpt-ention petHsee- employment'... er- retention, Life cycle'

CareerS ecision,,i4L.... • Family economics. t \/ Ko'19.ABSNTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

'- This research supports The Army Family Action Plans (1984-1989) 'y providing new

information on the retention decision to military leaders and policymakers and generating

hypotheses to be evaluated in the Army Family Research Program (AFRF). _ ,

Findings were summarized from the different AFRP investigations, which consisted of(1) extensive reviews of military and civilian family and retention literature; (2) sec-ondary analyses of the 1985 DoD Soldier and Spouse Surveys and the 1983 One ThousandFamilies in Europe Survey; (3) primary analysis of the 1988 Annual Survey of Army Families;

and (4) new data collected on Army single parents, dual-military couples, and other Army

families in the United States and Europe.

(Continued)

"20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONa] UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. LD DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b.TELEPHONE (nclude Are& Code) MBOLD. Bruce Bell (202) 274-8119 PERI-RP

DD Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T IS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIEDi -

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGErWa Data Entred)

ARI Research Report 1556

ý,9. ABSTRACT (Continued)

Family factors contributing to retention decisions include spouse sup-port for the military member, spouse employment, family life cycle, familyeconomics, and the family career decision process.

_',Pnlicymakers and Army commanders can use the findings in this report to46-i'de their decisions co.-:erning the family programs most likely to enhanceretention. This report will also be of value in deriving hypotheses for the

Army Family Research Program. /

Accession For

11115 GRA&I

DTIC TAB 0Unaruaounced 5

SJut if iat lon__

ByDistribution/

Availability Codes

!Avail and/orsla.t Special+.

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEr'W1en Datl D .Enwred) •

ii

Research Report 1556

Family Impacts on the Retention

of Military Personnel

Dennis K. OrthnerUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Personnel Utilization Technical AreaNora K. Stewart, Acting Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research LaboratoryPaul A. Gade, Acting Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

April 1990

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel

2Q263007A792

Approved for publis release; distrbution Is unlimhted.

'I

FOREWORD

The Army Family Research Program (AFRP) is a 5-year inte-grated research program started in November 1986 in response toresearch mandated by the CSA White PaTer• 1983: •he Army FamilYand subsequently by The Armv Flamjly Action_.PjAn (1984-1989).The research supports the Army Family Action Plans through re-search products that will (1) determine the aemographic charac-teristics of Army families, (2) identify positive motivators andnegative detractors to soldiers remaining in the Army, (3) de-velop pilot programs to improve family adaptation to Army life,and (4) increase operational readiness.

The research is being conducted by the U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) with as-sistance from Research Triangle Institute, Caliber Associates,HumRRO, and the University of North Carolina. It is funded byArmy research and development funds set aside for this purposeunder Management Decision Package (1U6S).

ThiE report summarizes the research findings from the ArmyFamily Research Program on the relationship of family factors toretention. These findings were presented to Army and DoD programmanagers and policymakers at tne DoD Family Research Review Con-ference at Andrews Air Force Base, Marvyand. in February 1990-Their comments and the requests for additional copies of the pre-sentation indicate they found the information useful for theirprograms.

TEDGAR n. JODrtorTechnical Director

V

FAMILY IMPACTS ON THE RETENTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL

XECJUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

To support The Army Family Action Plans (1984-1989) by sum-marizing the relationship of family fact rs to retention in orderto provide new information on the retention decision to militaryleaders and policymakers and to generate hypotheses to be eval-uated in the Army Family Research Program (AFRP).

Procedur'e:

Findings were summarized from the different AFRP investiga-tions, which consisted of (1) extensive reviews of the militaryand civilian family and retention literature; (2) secondaryanalyses of the 1985 DoD Soldier and Spouse Surveys and the 1983One Thousand Families in Europe Survey; (3) primary analysis ofthe 1988 Annual Survey of Army Families; and (4) new data col-

lactcd o Arm G~l Parnt, da-- 4z r1-4 4*a- *y

Army families in the United States and Europe.

Findings:

Family factors contributing to retention decisions includespouse support for the military member, spouse employment, familylife cycle, family economics, and the family career decisionprocess.

Utilization of Findings:

Policymakers and Army commanders can use the findings inthis report to guide their decisions concerning the family pro-grams that are most likely to enhance retention. This reportwill also be of value in deriving hypotheses for the Army FamilyResearch Program.

vii

FAMILY IMPACTS ON THE RETENTION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL

QONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Contributions of Spouse Support . . . . . . . . ..... 3Contributions of Spouse Employment. . .q. . . . . . . . . 5Contributions of Family Economics . . 0 * . . . 6Contributions of Support Programs and Services. ......... 7Contributions of Family Life Cycle. . . . . . . . . . .. 8The Family Career Decision Process. . .... ........... . 8

IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY POLICY ...................... 9

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ii

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Family and organizational commitment--elaborated theoretical framework. . . . . . . . . 2

ix

FAMILY IMPACTS ON THE REITENION OF MILITARY PE-6CTNEL

Introduction

The potential contribution of family factors to the retention decisions ofmilitary personnel has becxme an increasingly common question. The beliefthat service menbers not only take the views of their spouses and childreninto account when they decide whether to remain in or leave the service butthat family members play an important role in this decision is now more oftenespoused by policy makers and researchers alike. Family members are no longerviewed as passive recipients of the benefits and stresses associated with life

in the armed services; instead, they are seen as active co-participants in themilitary lifestyle by sharing the demands and the satisfactions that are partof woreing and living Ln the armed services, and as such, are participants inthe soldier career process.

The Army Family Research Program (AFRP) has given significant attention tothe hypothesized linkage between family factors and retention decisions.AFRP is a five-year integrated research program of the U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and is sponsored by theU.S. Army Community and Family Support Center. In part, this research programis an outgrowth of the military family research that has been conducted in allthe a-imed services for the past decade as well as a response to the researchmandates of the Chief of Staff of the Army .1983).

Prior to th•e mid-1970's, very little research attention was devoted tomi •..,families ar-14 ' priction m dels in.cuded famil!y variablo](Etheridge, 1989). Most of the rehseaxd at that time concentrated on the workenvironment or on pay and benefits as the primary predictors of retentiondecisions (Lakhani, 1988; Orthnar & Pittman, 1986). In addition, sckeprediction models of career decision-making proposed that economiccomparability between rdlitary and civilian jobs affected retention, but thesemodels din not take into aocount family factors or perceptions of quality oflife (Black, Warner, & Arnold, 1985). This situation changed significantlyduring the 1980's as more and more research focused attention on the needs andconcerns of military tamilies and their potential hhpacts on militarypersonnel behavior and attitudes, including retention and attrition.

The AFRP attenpted frmn the outset to develop a comprehensive, predictivemodel of the family, community and work environment factors -that play a rolein retention and performance related behaviors. This model is shcwn in Figure1. The model was based on principles of exchange and systems theories andatteipted to provide a more coaplete explanation of the factors that predictcareer decision-making in the military (Bowen, 1989; Orthner & Scanzoni,1988). Briefly stated, the model hypothesizes that the retention decisions ofmarried personnel are influenced by satisfactions derived from both the workand family environments, the level c f adaptation of the family to the military,and the perceived conparability of the military to its civilian alternatives.These factors are influenced by characteristics of the work, cormnmity andfamily environments, spouse employment, and awareness of civilianalternatives.

1

I0.-

CL Os c

Or

zcc

0 0

0' 0

22,

In order to test the components of this model, previous research andbehavioral science theories have been examined for their applicability tomilitary occupational decision-making. Iiis has led to a moir-e oc0prehensiveth-eory-grouinded approach to developing knowledge about family and retentionlinkages, instead of relying on isolated and limited investigations in whichfamily variables are either the primary focus or in which there are too fewfamily variables to accurately estimate their effects.

This report summarizes the findings frm the research conducted thus far bythe AFRP team. This research was undertaken for two purposes: to provide newinformation on retention decisions to military leaders and policy-makers andto provide hypotheses and measures for the AFRP field survey that wasconducted in 1989. The methods employed included extensive reviews of themilitary and civilian family and retention literature; secondary analyses ofthe 1985 DoD Soldier and Spouse Surveys and the 1983 One Thousand ramilies inEurope Survey; primary analysis of the 1988 Annual Survey of Ar-,(T Families;and new data coollected on Army single parents, dual-military couples, andfocus groips of Army personnel and families in the continental United States(0ONUS) CONUS and in Europe. When research outside AFRP is helpful inexplaining findings, references to that research are also included.

Findings

The findings froa the AFRP research on family factors and retention areorganized arcound the following topic areas: the contribution of spousesupport, spouse employment, family life cycle, family ecoonomics, to retentiondecisions and the career decision process, support proqrans and services.

Contributions of Spouse Siport

One of the most. consistent findings in the research is the positive andsignificant relationship between spouse support and the retention intentionsand behavior of armed forces personnel (Bowen, 1989; Etheridge, 1989; Pittman& Orthner, 1988). In every investigation that has been conducted, theretention of service members is higher among those with spouses who supporttheir decision to stay in tl : service ccmpared to those with spouses who donot. So strong is this relationship that it often cutweighs other moreinstrumental factors such as pay, allotmeints and other benefits.

It should be noted, however, that the relationship between spouse supportand retention decisions is likely to be reciprocal. That is, the more theservice member is satisfied with his or her job, and with the quality of lifein the armed forces, the more likely it is that the spouse perceives thissatisfaction and supports the service member's career and commitments (Bowen,1989; Iiakhani, 1988). In addition, the level of agreement in career plansbetween spouses tends to be higher among officer couples than among enlistedcouples (Griffith, Stewart, & Cato, 1988). This suggests that officerfamilies may coxmunicate more about these decisiors and that their spouses'level of mutual influence may be higher than is true for enlisted families.Still, the contribution of spouse support. to career decision-making is highfor both groups.

3

There are several factors that are particularly important in, encouragingspouse support for personnel retention. First of all, the presence ofchildren tends to encourage spouse support. and reenlistment, especially ifthere is a perception that the quality of life for childr-en in the anredservices is good (Etheridge, 1989; Griffith et a]., 3988). In fact, one ofthe most consistent findings over the past decade ha-- been the significantrelationship between beliefs that children are 3 ikely to suffer in themilitary and decisions to leave the armed forces (Etheridge, 1989; Orthner,1980).

The belief that military leaders care about the needs of families is alsostrongly associated with increased levels of spouse support (Griffith et al.,1988; Pittman & Ort.1er, 1988). In a recent investigation at an Army traininginstallation, this was one of the most importalit factors predicting spousesupport for an Army career (Orthner, Brody, 'Hill, Pais, Orthier, & Covi,1985).

The quality of the marital relationship itself is related to spouse support(Lakhani, 1988; Pittman & Orthner, 1989), probably because service members aremore likely to take into account the views of their spouses when theirrelationships are satisfactory and strong. An investigation cx,paring theimpacts of marital satisfaction on the career decisions of active duty men andwomen found that higher quality marriagas are more likely to positively impacton the career decisions of husbands, but that higher quality relationshipsalso benefit wives by improving the fit between personal and organizationalgoals (Pittman & Orthner, 1989). In addition, service mezbers are more likelyto oonsider the views of spxouses whlo are aocxnpanying them thkui of thotiespouses who are not acccapanying them at their current assignment (Griffith etal., 1988). Spouse support is also higher when the spouse has had militaryexperience, either as a child or former service member. This is especiallytrue for spouses of officers and NODs.

Some factors tend to discourage spouse support for the service member'smilitary career. As noted above, one of the most important is the perceptionthat the environment is not a good place for rearing children (Etheridge,1989; Griffith et al., 1988). This belief strongly decreases spouse support.The absence of children also tends to decrease spouse support, probablybecause these -;pouses are more independent and are more concerned about theirown careers and lifestyle alternatives. In adr1ition, many of the militarybenefits, such as housirn- .redical care and family services, may have lessimpact on these childless marriages.

Among military women, husband support is not a strong predictor ofretention, even though wife support tends to be a fairly strong predictor formilitary men (Teplitzky, 1988). Likewise, the retention of military women isnegatively affected by their intention to have children, especially whenhaving children is imp)ortant to them. This relationship probably indicatesthat some women anticipate having problems balancing their work and familyroles, and this dismorages them from remaining in the armed forces.

Wen spouses themselves are asked why they want service members to stay

4

beyord their (mrrent obligation, three reasons are most frequently cited: theservice menbers satisfaction with his or her job, the security and stabilityof that job, and the retirement pay and benefits (Griffith et al., 1988).Infrequently nentioned are factors such as cu-rent pay and allowances, theopportunity to serve their country or the opportunity to travel. Thesefindings suggest that, in addition to quality of life and family well-being,pose support is indeed influersi by the eonoznic rewards provided by the

military to the service member and family. Perceptions of job satisfactionand economic stability are deered inportant by spouses, as is the anticipatedfamily security that can oame from futbre retirement benefits.

Contributions of Spouse E1Blomet-_-

The potential oontribution of spouse employment to the retention decisionsof married military persrxnel is booming increasingly evident. The majorityof military spouses are now in the labor market, either employed or lookingfor work (Griffith et al., 1988). This can increase their influence over themilitary career dect.cion process, especially as more service families dependon second inco-wJ to enhance their standard of living and quality of life.

AFRP research on spouse erployment and its impacts on the retentiondecision indicates that Wmxlse employment currently has potentially mixed'onsueq•nces. Although they are in the minority today, younger spouses who donot want to be employed are most likely to support their spouse's militarycareer (Griffith et al., 1988). Spouse erployrent by itself is not related to

Z[-AS ULJ1 I(JL 42 HUXLaLLLOY %-LkL~ &AAt. -&. L S r-=L1JA%,-=k .A O ý.L AA%ýLq W.L'.

the Army. The spouses who are mast dissatisfied and who are likely toencourage the service member to leave the military are those who areunemployed and looking for work (Wood, 1988). r.hese spouses are the mostdiscouraged with military life and their spouses receive the greatest pressureto leave the armed services, irrespective of whether they are in tihecontinental United States (C~tt;S) or outside the continental United States(0ooXuS).

Participation in volunteer activities can serve as a substitute for workinvolvement amxong some spouses and enhance spouse support. As such, volunteeractivities promote the social integration of spcuses within the militarycxmrunity. In fact, volunteer participation is poe.itively related to careersupport among the spouses of junior enlisted personnel and coupany gradeofficers (Griffith et al., 1988). It should be noted, however, that officerspouses are particularly sensitive to peroeptions of their own careerpwKress; if they are more dependent on a work career than a volunteer careerfor their sense of personal satisfaction, they are more likely to discouragetheir spouse from makingqa career in the arTrxd forces.

The potential contribution of spouse enployment to military careerprogression has bemure so significant that examination has been given withinthe AMP to revising the dominant Annualized Oost of Leaving (ACOL) wodel forpredicting military retention behavior. This analysis suc~Pests that thecurrent AOCL components of pay and alternative civilian eP irs may beinsufficient by themselves for explaining retention trx°cr- at die present time(flogan, in pre0paration). It is nexessary to include in -h 0*•3Tation the

5

effect of th3 non-military spouse's earnings a-d the cost associated with thatperson's earnings in a military environment vis-a-vis an alternative civilianenvironment.

The potential irpact of the revised ACOL model was simulated throughanalysis of the 1985 DoD data. Mhat analysis indicated that spouseunenpioyment cirently results in a 35 percent decrease in ratentionintentions amonr Army enlisted personnel tWood, 1988). Furtherm)re, Hogan (inpreparation) predict that when the wife's earnings potential is Limited by herhusband's militax-y career, her satisfaction with the military will decline andher support for his career will diminish. These data ard analyses suggestthat spouse eMloymrent needs to be more strongly considered by military policymakers in reviewing reb.ntion enhancing initiatives.

ocntributions of Family Economics

The zontribution of family econcmic well-beLng has also been examined inAFRP reseauch and continues to be of interest in ccrPrehensive models ofretention decisions. Ecociics clearly plays a role in defining quality of"life, both for service maebers and their spouses. In addition, economicforces can encourage spouse eployment, as well as periodic reviews ofcivilian employment alternatives, factors which are increasingly beingincluded in retention prediction rcdels.

Research on the impact of pay and allca-ances on retention decisions offersmixed results. By itself, basic pay is a modest inducement to retention and asimulation of its impact fPAod that a wage charqe of $1,000 only increasesretention by one percent (Wood, ±988). Likewise, satisfaction with currentpay and allowances does not appear to be a significant predictor of eitherspouse support or service member retention when compared with other family andlife style factors (Etheridge, 1989).

Economic inducenmnts are, however, more important in some career and fa .lylife cycle stages than in others. For exarnle, the belief that the family ireybe financially better off if the xrmber is in a civilian job is a significantpredictor of reenlistment intentions among first term enlisted personnel andtheir spouses (Dunteman, Bray, Wood, Griffith, & Ostrove, 1987). During thesecod enlistment term, however, the contribution of pay and benefits as wellas civilian alternatives plays a less important role in retention decisions.At that time many wore factors are taken into account by service members andtheir spcLses when considering a military career. As marriage, children andother obligations increase, the career decision becoms inore ccmplex and payand benefits have less significant weight in the decision process.

Among dual military couples, pay and benefits are also irportant predictorsof retention intentions (Lakhatli, 1988; Teplitzky, 1988). Research on thesecouples indicates thrit they are ruch more pracrmatic in the factors that theytake into account in iaking a career decision. This may be caused by themutual career orientation of both the husband and wife and the fact that theymay see one or both military caraers being interrupted if they should decideto have children. Frit the data analyzed to date, it would appear that it isthe woman in the relationship that is the most sensitive to the

6

civilian-military pay camparability issue and the most likely to enck-ageseparation frcou the service if pay is perceived to be inadequate (Teplitzky,1988).

Contributions of .94-,port Programs and Services

The contribution of military support programs and services to the retentiondecisions of personnel and families has been proposed but the data to supportthis are still inadequate. Attzmpts to define a direct relationship betweenthe use of or satisfaction with cunmunity support services, and retentiondecisions have thus far proven to be unsuccessful (Griffith et al., 1988;Orthner & Pittman, 1986). Hcwever, there are significant indirectrelaticnships between ccmunity program variables and retention relatedoutcomes, suggesting that investments in support programs are having positiveimpacts.

Recent inproverents in the quality of support services for families havebegun to produce modest but significant retention remilts. In aninvestigation of retention differences at Ji ntallations with high and lowquality family support programs, significar "iy higher retention rates werefoundr at installations with better quality programs (Office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense, 1989). Even more dramatic, requests for tour extensionswere greater at those installations with better quality programs, indicatingthat quality of life is associated with improved program quality.

Proqram awareness and satisfaction with support programs also has asignificant indireat effect on retention. Active duty persornel and spouseswho are more aware of family support services are more likely to believe thatthe military is responsive to family needs and to want to stay in the service(Orthner & Pittman, 1986). While use of support progrars does not necessarilyimprove retention plans or behavior, satisfaction with these programs (whetherused or not) is associated with satisfaction with the quality of life in themilitary, which is related to retention (Etheridge, 1989).

The research to date suggests that while ccmmnuity support programs overallmay have a modest influence on retention, selected programs may influenceretention substantially among some families (Ort.-hner, Early-Adams, & Pollack,1988). For exwrpile, programs that enhance employment among spouses who arecar•rently ue~ployed appear likely to have substantial, demonstrated impactson retention, as the simulation models that have been developed suLggest (Wood,1988). Likewise, programs that enhance the awareness of coxwrnity supportservices or increase the strength of informal support networks within amilitary comunity are also likely to have positive effects on retention(Bowen, 1989; Etheridge, 1989. Programs that improve relocation andseparation experiences and foster positive family adaptation to the militarylifestyle are the most likely to result in higher military career support onthe part of spouses and higher retention of personnel (Griffith et al., 1988).These findings suggest that cmmiunity support programs and services should notalways be treated as a package in their effects on retention bWt tmust beexamined separately in order to determine their consoequences for retentionamong selected family populations.

7

Contributions of Family Life Cycle

It is important to understand the family life cycle, as well as the careerlife cycle, when examining the influence of family variables on retentiondecisions. 2 'RP research suggests the factors individuals take into accountin making a career decision vary significantly across the family and careerlife cycles. Single persons, for example, are much more heavily influencd byjob and economic factors in nakirq their career decisions even thoughsatisfaction with the military environrmnt, personal freedcm and theopportunity to serve one's countrx do play a significant part (Dunteman etal., 1987). Dial-military, childle- •oples tend ko be similarly pragmaticin their approach to retention decisions, giving nore weight to job andeconomic factors (Teplitzky, 1988).

With marriage and children cmew more comalications and obligations. 11nefactors that a military metber and his or her spouse must take into accountincrease substantially and the importarce of the "fit" between the militaryand family life styles becites much more significant (Bowen, 1989). Thus, thepotential impact of children, spouse employment, programs and services, andcommunity support networks increases substantially and begins to outweigh thejob and econcmic factors -that so daminated the considerations of those inearlier stages of the life cycle. Interestingly, while marriage andparenthood tend to increase retention for both officer and enlisted malepersonnel, having children early in the military career reduces retention inconparison to those who wait longer before having. children (Rakoff & Doherty,1989). Amrorn active duty women, having children tends to lower retentionrates, probably because of the increased work and family conflicts and thelimiting effects of children on some career enhancing assignments (Pittman &Orthner, 1989).

It would appear fram the research that family life cycle serves as animportant condition in determining the relationship between family variablesand retention decisions. As marital and parental obligations increase, thereare more coortaraties for conflicts to emerge between work and familydemands. Unless these conflicts can be managed, the "fit" between militaryand family environments will diminish and stress will increase both on the joband at hcmi. The earlier in the career that these conflicting demands emerge,the more likely the spouse will discourage retention and the less likely theservice mewber will 7 emain in the military. It is apparent fram the researchto date that failure to seriously take into account the family life cycle willresult in inadequate explanations of the relationship between family variablesand military retention decisions.

The Family Career Decision Process

Much of the research that has been conducted suggests that the retentiondecision is the consequence of a variety of different factors. What thisresearch has not done is to explore the processes through which this decisionis made. Several of the AFRP investigations, however, suggest that familyfactors are not as indepezvdent as was once believed (Orthner & Scanzord,1988). Instead, the family and work related factors are intertwined in a muchmore interdependent manner than has previously been hypothesized. This

8

suggests that family decision-making is best represented by the unfolding of aset of mutually influencing conditions, making it difficult to separate outindependent and dependent factors or variables.

Several researchers have proposed that a decision process model is indeed abetter picture of how family factors impact ultimately on the retentiondecision. Orthner and Scanzoni (1988), refer to this as "'maximum jointinterests", Bowen (1989) as "reciprocal effects", akhani (1988) as "familywelfare," and Hogan (in preparation) as "the Family ACOL". Each of theseresearchers base their hypotheses upon current investigations and data that isgenerated by couples rather than the perceptions of individuals alone. Whatemerges is a much rore ocmplicated but probably more acumrate picture of thecareer decision-making process, even though research specifically examiningthat process itself has not been conducted at this time.

Preliminary findings fran the AFRP survey confirm the potential importanceof understanding joint career decision-raking. When asked how they had madeor were making the decision co stay in or leave the Army, the majority (67percent) of the soldiers indicated that they and their spouses made or willmake the decision together. Most of the remainder (26 percent) considered orwill consider their spouses point of view in making the decision. These datasuggest that career decisions cannot be examined solely from tie soldier'spoint of view but must also take the family's needs and concerns into account.

Implications for Military Policy

or ~ev -- teQ 1. -. 4-1,^, IVDO ~ v

policy areas which are most likely to result in positive retention outcomesfor military personnel. First of all, policies that support greateropportunities for spouse employment would appear to produce substantialdividends in retention, especially among those who are currently looking forwork or anticipate looking for work in the future. Spouse unemployment in themilitary is much higher than in the civilian work force and unemployed spcosesare the most likely to support their spouse's separation from the armedforces. Spouse employpent trends do not appear to be abating so the pressurefor a work environment that permits jcb and career continuity and progressionfor spouses is likely to increase.

Oj-rent progrwns that exriasize spouse employment training, job referralsand military spouse work priorities should be continued and expanded to thegreatest extent possible. It is important for these programs to emphasize theplacement of spouses in jobs that meet career goals, not just work that fillstime or pays reasonable wages. In addition, policies that stabilize familiesin locations for longer periods of time are more likely to result in jobcontinuity for spouses and increase their support for the service member andhis or her military career. At the present time, short tour lengjths inhibitjob contmnuity and force spouses to replace jobs more frequently. Thisdiscourages career progression and forces many spouses t) take lower paykigjobs than their work experiences would normally allow. The undermploymentthat results fron this is particularly disc.xraging to spouses and results indissatisfaction with military service and increases pressure on the servicemember to leave.

9

A second set of policies that will enhance family support for retention isrelated to family relocation and separation support. Family relocations andseparations are stressful for many families and often discourage familysupport for the military, especially among those who are unprepared fordeployments and extended separations. Programs that enhance family adaptationduring separations are more likely to increase family -aport and positiveperceptions of military leadership, two keys to enhancing spouse support formilitary careers. These programs should include: pre-deployment briefings;pre-deployment family tine, whenever possible; family status reports curingdeployments, especially when risks are higher; inexpensive communication withthe service member; and preparation for reunion for service renbers andfamilies.

Relocation stress is also related to family disorganization and 1c•erretention support. The need for quality relocation assistance is one of themost commonly dox~iented findings but the inadequacy of this assistance isalso widespread. Besides supporting service families financially, it is veryimportant for accurate information to be given to families as early aspossible before the move. The accuracy of this information is as important asits timeliness. Much more emphasis also nees to be given to sponsorshipprograms for all personnel, not just officers; improvements in hcusirnglocation assistance; job referrals for spouses; personal or frequentorientation programs; and more leave time for personnel whose families arealso moving, especially if they do rot accxxpany them on the move.

A third set of policies that are likely to increase retention are programsS... -13 .. .•dn-- yc164 . I--- the tngest -,to-of spouse career support and retention intentions is the perception that themilitary environment is a good place to rear children. The stronger thisperception, the greater the likelihood that retention can be enhanced.Programs that provide quality child care, after school programs, youthrecreation and child and youth development are likely to enhance theretention of service members. Most importantly, these programs may have thebiggest impact on the higher performing personnel, especially mid-careerpersonnel and officers for whcx the needs and concerns of children are oftenof utmost importance.

Investments in higher quality support programrs are also important.Mediocre programs do not reflect well on military leaders and detract frcm thequality of life in a ccmTunity. It would be better for the military to offerfewer, better quality services that indicate concern for families and offergood solutions to needs than to provide a smorgasbord of inadequate prograns,und services that only partially fill these needs. Careful consideration mustNee given to maintaining quality programs durirxg this time of budgetconstraints. Maintaining guality is likely to be better than maintaining(uantity in programs, as long as a basic threshold of critical services arecDntinued.

A fourth set of policies shovld be directed towards the overallstrengthening of military families. Policies which enhance the perceptionthat military permits better family relationships are likely to result in moremilitary coamitents, especially among many of the younger men and women who

10

have expectations for more shared famdly experiences. Research has shovm thatmarital and parental satisfaction is related to career support and retention.Unit and installation programs and policies that support family activities arelikely to pay positive dividends. Furthermore, policies that support thedevelopument of informal family support networks are also likely to 3-.Upportthis objective. This includes cmmunity and neighborhood developmentstrategies, programs that build support networks, and recreational programsthat bring families together. If these policies are coupled with longer tourlengthis, this will provide greater family stability and a more cxlpetitivemilitary posture with the job and lifestyle opportunities that may beavailable to military members on the other side of the fence.

Irplications for Research

It should be noted that much of the research that has been corducted thusfar is still exploratory. Retention research is limited for three primaryreasons: some of the samples selected are small or nonrepresentative; much ofthe research does not include information on both husbands and wives from thesane marriages; and almost none of the investigations contain adequateinformation on the full range of work, family, and community related variablesthat potentially inpact on retention. Thus, the weight of the evidencesuggests that family variables do contribute significantly to retention buthow this occurs and how this process can be encouraged to support futureretention objectives is still largely unknown.

An important strategy that needs to be erployed is research on ther~tention caree-sr dosc~~n proý-. Is rezearch A•ald fors on the factors_that different cmuples take into account and how these factors change overtime. More intensive investigation than has been undertaken thus far isneeded and it will require both qualitative and quantitative research in orderto uncover all of the variables and decision-making strategies that are beingused.

A second line of research shorud focus on the retention of higah performingmilitary personnel. It is increasingly apparent the armed forces should bemore concerned about the retention of high performing personrel than with theretention of all personnel. This means that future research needs to fomus onfamily and retention variables as well as personnel performance measures.Fortunately, the AFRP field investigation will provide this kind ofinforma=:ion, perhaps for the first time. This should help define the specificretention related factors that are most taken into aocount by those personsjudged by their supervisors to be of the caliber that the armed servioeswishes to retain.

Fliure research also needs to focus on a sufficient number of family andnon-family variables so that multivariate statistical analyses can moreeffectively weigh the relative contribution of several competing factors toretention. Ideally, these investigations should be theoretically andezpirically driven in order to include the variables that are most importantin predicting retention behavior. In addition, this research should belongitudinal in order to examine the effects of changes u-i family and work

11

circumstances and their oonsequences for career decision-making and personnelretention.

Finally, future research should examine the consequnces of specificprogram interventions on families and the retention of military personnel. Ithas been aptly demonstrated that measures of program satisfaction arnd use donot adequately predict retention related outcozes. These global proLammeasures are too crude and do not take into account ths specific programactivities, their use, the overlapping nature of oxmmiunity support programsand the effectiveness of these programs in meeting family and militarypersonnel needs. Without more detailed analyses, it is unlikely that currentresearch can go much further in infonring military policy makers and programpersonnel as to how to tailor their programs in order to enhance largermilitary objectives, such as retentioi and readiness. Previous rtsearch iscertainly inadequate. Abre targeted investigations of specific programs areneeded in order to measure adequately program effects.

12

R-ferences

Black, M., Warner, J. T., & Arnold, J. E. (1985). Retention of DODcivilians. Arlington, VA: Systems Researcii and Applications (SA)Corporation.

Bowen, G. L. (1989). Family factors and member retention: A keyrelationship in the work and family equation. In G. L. Bowen and D. K.Orthner (Eds.), The organization family: Work and family linkages in theU.S. _ •iltai_ (pp. 37-58). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

Chiief of Staff, U.S. Army. (1983). White paper 1983: The a4rnvfamily.Washi•qton, D.C.: Dpartnent of the Army.

Dunteman, G. H., Bray, R. M., Wood, L., Griffith, J. D., & Ostrove, N. M.(1987). Explorator-,r models of reenlistment intentions: FroM the 1985 DSa4_vof Enlisted Personnel (Contract No. MNf903-87-C-0540). Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Etheridge, R. M. (1989). Family factors affectinQ retention; A review ofthe literature (Research Report 1511). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A210 506)

Hogan, P. F. (in preparation). Family annualized cost of leaviM (AODL):The household as the decision unit in military retention (TechnicalReport 890). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behaviov-al Scrwial S

Griffith, J. D., Stewart, L. S., & Cato, E. S. (1988). Annual Survey of ArnyFamilies: A report on Arw spouses and families in 1987 (Vols. 1-3)Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army CQumunity and Family Support Center.

Lakhani, H. (1988). Career decisions of dual career couples: Aninterdisciplinary analysis of the U.S. Army (Technical Report 824).Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Ret;ac Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences. (AD A206 983)

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD). (1989). Report on therelationship between facilities quality and retention at militaryinstallations (Hou~se Report 100-209). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Orthner, D. K. (1980). Families in blue: A ,tudy of married and singleparent familigs in the Air Force. Washington, D.C.: Department of the AirForce.

Orthner, D. K., Brody, G., Hill, W., Pais, J., Orthner, B., & Covi, R.(1985). Families in Q n at Ft. Benninj. Washington, D.C.: Departmentof the Army.

13

Ortbner, D. K., Early-Adams, P., & Pollack, D. (1988). Community SuDortprograms: A Review of the literature (Cot'tract No. ML)A903-87-C-0540).Alexandria, VA: U.S. Armay Research Institute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences.

Orthner, D. K., & Pittwr, J. F. (1986). FPimily oontributions to workcommitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 4.8, 573-581.

Orthner, D. K., & Scanzoni J. (1988). A theoretical fr work linking familyfactors with work ommnitment. Paper presented at the Theory Constructionand Research Methodology Workshop, NCFR Annual Meetin, Philadelphia, PA.

Pittman, J. F., & Orthner, D. K. (1988). Predictors of spouse support forthe work coumunities. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5Q, 335-348.

Pittman, J. F., & Orthner, D. K. (1989). Gender differences in theprediction job comnitment, In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family:Theory. reerch and applications (pp. 227-248). Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Fakoff, S. H., & Doherty, J. H. (1989). Army family c ition andretention (Research Report 1535). Alecandria, VA: U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A212 880)

Teplitzky, M. L. (1988). Dual Army career couples: Factors related to thecareer intentions of men and women (Technical Report 804). Alexandria,

(AD 199 289)

Wood, L. L. (1988). Fami1;' factors and the retention intentions ofenlisted Pe Paper presented at the OIqA-TIMS Annual Convention,Denver, CO.

14